Re: E language over I2P

On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:16, Derick Eddington wrote:

> ... My idea is to use I2P destinations for VatIDs, I2P's DHT for  
> VatID/destination locating instead of VLS, and use I2P's (default  
> encrypted, default authenticating) streaming library instead of  
> signed-DH VatID verification and VatTP. ...

Our plan is to rewrite CapTP and VatTP in E, and replace the  
encrypted-channel aspect of VatTP with TLS. I am currently working on  
this.

My implementation will include the feature that CapTP can use  
multiple secure transports (besides VatTP); the particular use case  
of this is so that vats running on the same OS can communicate over  
anonymous streams (probably unix-domain sockets on unixoids, ??? on  
Windows) without unnecessarily using encryption.

However, to be able to have consistent vat identities so that 3-party  
introduction always works, a vat must use the same VatID and  
associated key-pair no matter what transports it is using.

What advantages do you see of using I2P instead of VatTP?

(Also, there is currently no implementation of the VLS concept.)
>

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>